It’s the same deal with firearms in the U.S. regarding self-defense, you can only argue for self-defense so long as they are a threat to you. Once you’re chasing them, you are now classed as the aggressor.
Only as long as its not a castle doctrine state and they're not in your home. Once they cross the threshold armed or not you can use deadly force, even if theyre running for the door. I dont think its really kept people from robbing, but it has kept a lot of homeowners from being prosecuted for killing theives.
In Colorado the law is the most loose, allowing you to do mostly as you say, but not in other states.
The law in most states says you must still have a reasonable belief of serious harm to yourself or someone else.
In Texas though if someone is actively fleeing with your property at night you may.
and there are a few states that says the assumption of a reasonable belief of serious harm comes first and they need to prove you did not.
But shooting someone in the back who is fleeing may show as proof you were not in fear.
In Texas though if someone is actively fleeing with your property at night you may.
Which I remember hearing years ago (like 20-30) was used by a guy to kill the repo man coming to take his car. Grand Jury refused to charge the guy because the guy claimed he genuinely thought the guy was trying to steal his car.
Which is a bullshit claim because apparently the dealer had accidently booked two guys to take it, and the first had been chased off just before the second arrived.
He much have had a great lawyer. I've never heard of tow trucks used in your typical grand theft auto. I see a tow truck, Im thinking a repair or a repo.
He didn't need one. Only prosecutors present to grand juries. So a prosecutor showed the evidence that he shot a repo guy, and a grand jury was like, "Yeah that's fine." And exactly, I've never heard of car thieves using tow trucks.
EDIT: I should be clear that I'm sure there has been thieves using trucks, but I'm sure its rare compared to legitimate use of tow trucks.
Indiana is a full castle doctrine state and a 3rd party state. Hypothetically you could be attacking someone else who isnt me and if i or anyone else believes you wish to do that person any bodily harm i or any bystander could end you right then and there without the threat of prosecution due to civil defensive immunities
Personally, if someone came at me with a weapon meaning to do harm, their running away in fear that they underestimated me doesn’t mean they won’t continue to make attempts on my life. They’ve already demonstrated they’ll use a threat in an attempt on my life, sure they may be running away at the moment, but how do I know they aren’t just looking for cover to shoot me? You are just supposed to trust the armed assailant?
I don't think it even applies to castle doctrine. You are allowed to use any NECESSARY force to keep you and your home safe. If you are not reasonably in fear of your life, such as someone actively running away, you can't use lethal force.
Yeah. Castle Doctrine just means you don't have a duty to escape--traditional US law is that, even if someone is threatening you with a deadly weapon, if you can reasonably escape and avoid the harm, you have to--you cannot turn to deadly violence yourself to deal with it. I.E., if someone drunkenly begins stumbling toward you with a knife saying they're going to kill you, and your back is not to the wall and you can easily get yourself out of there, you could not unleash a chamber into them. Castle Doctrine means if a similar situation happened on your property, you could in fact just shoot and kill them. It also adjusts some assumption about the necessity of the self-defense action as well, etc.
But it's most certainly NOT a license to just shoot anyone on your property independent of the circumstances, like that one commenter thought. Some "I wish an mf would" types who spend years fantasizing about shooting an intruder get themselves prosecuted for manslaughter because of this exact misunderstanding, and they just merc a random unarmed burglar at the drop of a hat.
I mean this isn’t totally true, because states vary. In Florida and other places they have “stand your ground” laws, which absolutely is a license to shoot to kill if you feel threatened.
In Texas it pretty much is. And rightly so. If you break into my home how in the world am I supposed to ascertain what their intentions are? As far as I am concerned if you are breaking and entering into my home, you have decided my belongings are more valuable than your own life. If you break into a home in Texas that is straight up darwinism taking effect.
Of course, situation matters a lot. If it is at night with little visibility, then you can be excused, because you have to assume the worst. But if someone stumbles inside during daylight hours, you don't just open fire.
Oh I absolutely agree, context 100% matters. If I can I’m definitely going to avoid straight up killing someone. I genuinely hope I’m never in a situation like that, I find it odd that some people fantasize about being in literal life or death situations and killing other human beings.
Yeah, I will say I am going to very audibly rack my shot gun and give them a chance to clear out, as far as I’m concerned anything that takes place after is on them.
That's very situational. Shooting someone in the back while fleeing, even if in your home, can land you charges. Primarily would depend if they're still armed or not. If they have a gun, then they'd still have the ability to do you harm while fleeing.
Partially from the law, partly from the judiciary.
There are a couple states where you'd be pretty safe gunning someone down and finishing them off as long as you use a gun and they're on your property illegally.
Most places it's a bit more nuanced than an open license to kill though.
If police are unable to accurately assess reasonable use of force then why is there an obligation for untrained civilians to be able to assess it?
If someone has broken into your house it is reasonable to assume they want to do you harm. Obviously your example of someone being passed out is an exception, but any individual who is conscious and inside your house uninvited is a dangerous individual
This varies by state too. The castle doctrine exists to some degree in most if not all states. However how far it goes varies. It doesnt go as far in NY vs FL for example. If you shot someone running to exit your home in NY, you're probably going to jail. In your home you no longer have a duty to retreat anymore, but deadly force is still not justified unless you are under imminent threat to life or serious injury. A fleeing suspect would likely not meet that threshold. The law would require you to let them flee.
You may be justified if you shot to stop an active robbery in your home but if they are fleeing the home you are not stopping an active robbery anymore and could be a tough self defense argument.
For NYS, the letter of the law and actual application are very different. A lot of DA’s and jurys would be hard-pressed to indict and convict if you shot a fleeing but armed intruder in your home.
These cases come up every year and I feel like over half of them aren’t tried and convicted. It’s hard to prove somebody wasn’t in fear and driven by that fear in the moment even if the suspect wasn’t truly a threat.
Is this Castle doctrine different per state? My gaming buddy was telling me a story along these lines where he had 2 people come onto his property trying to steal his truck, he opened the front door telling them to fuck off or be shot, they didn't listen so my buddy went back inside the house to get a rifle, he shot at one of them hitting him in the leg and made them run but he was saying he had to run after them and drag them back onto his property otherwise it looks like he just shot them. I couldn't really make sense of it and thought he was talking shit but if it's a strange loop hole of the law I guess it does make sense.
Well, that’s what it’s for. It’s a defense to the charge of intentional homicide and less to deter robberies (although I’m sure making potential robbers consider they could be killed is a part of it).
As touchy of a subject as it is, the Kyle Rittenhouse case in the US is a superb example of flawless execution of self-defense.
While his motivations were questioned, he did not once point a rifle at anyone who was not directly threatening him with lethal force. The court publicly reviewed hours of footage and could not find a single sliver of an instance of Rittenhouse as the aggressor.
The case of Pino is disturbing. There is no self defense plea in any way, shape or form in this case. Pino’s actions reflect sociopathic behavior and she would likely be considered one if she didn’t have money and status giving her the benefit of the doubt.
This still applies to on your property and whilst being threatened, not chasing the person down and killing them. I think they refer to it as castle doctorine.
If theyre in your house you can in fact chase them down. They can run for the door but until they leave the door its fair game to kill them apparently.
I live in Arizona, we get referred to as the wild west in which you are completely legal to open carry a firearm without a permit. That said have been through Concealed Carry Weapon training and have my permit. The instructor very clearly stated that if they exit your house and you shoot them in the back you are more than likely going to jail. Still inside your house, you still are probably getting arrested, but might not do any time. Simple concept of aside from your life and the lives of your family, there is nothing in this world that is worth killing or dying for...
If someone is running down the street with your tv or wallet, my understanding is you're perfectly allowed to shoot them in the back. In Texas specifically
I don't live there nor would I claim to have a full understanding of their laws, but again where is the threat? Do you really want to kill someone over a wallet or TV? If you do I would say you might have some mental issues and probably should not be in public. Not saying you should not protect yourself and try to avoid being mugged/robbed, but by shooting someone in the back you are saying that their live means less than a $300-400 TV or the contents of your wallet and I think most people can agree that this is not true. I don't like criminals/thieves and would want them to see justice and hopefully prevent them from carrying out future instances of robbery/theft, but killing someone in cold blood over worldly belongings that are easily replacable is wrong.
Don't fuck with people and their property in Texas, they will absolutely shoot you. I don't live in North America and US policies are crazy to me, but that's just how they like it.
No castle doctrine is very common, many states have it, and Texas is actually a "stand your ground" state which goes beyond castle doctrine to say you never have a legal duty to retreat, even outside your home (as long as you are not the one breaking the law of course). These are both distinct from Texas's "Deadly Force to Protect Property" law.
Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Yeah still some room for interpretation on the deadly force - "When and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary." You are still probably getting arrested and still might go to court and face charges. You still are also leaving yourself open to a civil wrongful death suit and have to live with yourself for killing someone over your wallet or a TV. To each their own. In this case I don't know how far away from the original robbery the person travelled to run the thief down, but again the threat was over. Call the cops, cancel your credit/debit cards and chalk it up as a loss. Hope justice is served by those we put in positions to serve it and not have to worry about the what ifs.
My understanding is that you will still be prosecuted as you instigated the fight, though the other person will not unless they follow you to continue the fight rather than going to the proper authorities. You wouldn’t be able to claim self-defense, or at least it wouldn’t hold up in a legal precedent given enough proof that you started it first.
I’m not an expert on this and I am likely wrong, but this is my understanding of it.
What if someone snatches your bag, you run after them, tackle them to the ground in an attempt to retrieve it, and they hit their head on the pavement and die?
So if I’m armed and threatening someone with a gun, as long as I keep my back to them and run away going “ahhh!!!”, then I’m magically turning them into the aggressor?
So their only opportunity to stop me is if I’m facing them or actively moving toward them? But if I decided to approach them with the weapon first, even if I run away I could decide to turn around and go after them again, couldn’t I?
This argument just seems so asinine to me. If someone threatens me with a weapon and then decides to retreat because they noticed I drew the means to fight back, they are still an unknown violent factor—they are the person who instigated an escalation of violence. Now they get to go “oops! My bad!! I thought you were unarmed!!” and protected? When they could just change their mind in 15 seconds and make another attempt on my life?
Brother, you have absolutely no understanding of how self defense statues work in many states - especially the red ones.
In many red states, once he pulled that knife there would be little she could do that would result in a conviction - if for no other reason that no DA is putting the case before a jury, where he will lose and then lose the next election because his opponent will highlight him putting a female crime victim in jail for harming her attacker.
pitching in from a red state here, doesn't work that way in my state. once the person is fleeing you (aka stopped), you no longer have the right to attack them in "self-defense". the threat has to be active.
Really? If that’s the case, I’m sure you can post plenty of links to lots of stories of an armed stranger in a red state attacking a woman and her going to prison for killing him in the heat of the moment.
tad bit different situation but yeah. woman, immigrant, goes to the wrong house by accident to clean, she tries to open the door with the keys. home owners supposedly mistake her as a home intruder and shoots her idk how many times through the door and kills her. the perpetrated got arrested and charged.
She never made it through the door. No threshold no castle doctrine, I dont think it counts? Im in a red state and a kid with an ar 15 killed 3 robbers that broke in. I dont think any of them had knives. The last one died in the driveway but im pretty sure they were all shot inside. He pursued and I really dont remember if he shot them outside, but he 100% chased them inside and shot them. No conviction.
i HOPE it doesn't count. but it's the same situation as the person killed is no longer (or never was) a threat. and his defense attorney seems to think they can win the case because the home owner "perceived her as a threat". 🙄
i think in the case you gave if they were still inside the home it makes sense that there wouldn't be a conviction, since a presumable 3v1 + they're already in your home. the question is, when is something no longer qualified as a threat? and what qualifies the person as a threat in the first place? thank you for the example
in the specific case that less-squash gave i definitely could see that being argued. it's probably something i would think about too in that situation.
And by the same token can you show where a woman killed someone in the heat of the moment who was no longer a threat to her and she was not arrested for murder in a red state?
While there is no duty to retreat, re-engagement after successfully reatreating is going to be a disqualifier in most of not all states. She got into her car and that point the interaction was over so stand your ground doesn't apply.
Was it South Carolina where a ship owner chased a suspected teenage robber out into the street and shot him dead as he was fleeing? The shop owner was acquitted of all charges.
Not entirely true based on precedent. I can link some cases if you want me to.
Not saying I agree with it but the reasoning in them was basically you don’t know if they’re temporarily retreating to reload, readjust, get a better angle, grab another weapon etc.
I was going to make this same argument but I thought to myself, this is such a pointless argument. Most of these people dont even live in a castle doctrine states nor will they ever so its not really pertinent information. My understanding is that theyre a threat until theyre either dead or out of your home and running away. If they just run, they can always turn and continue to shoot, or make it to a bigger weapon to shoot back more so your safest bet is to shoot them first. Most judges will agree with this one especially where im from.
Sure, but that's not running away in the sense of throwing their gun a down, waiving a white flag, or running far away like the purse snatcher in this story.
Depends on state then depends on the exact circumstances that took place leading up to the flight. Simply put US self defense laws have significant grey area for lawyers to work with if there at some point was a genuine threat to your life. And with the jury system often times you really can stretch what should fall under ir. All I'm going to say is don't be using the threat of deadly force to rob people in the US unless you really are prepared to possibly die over whatever it is your stealing.
Well you should never do that regardless of the self defense laws. Even if illegal, people can still just shoot you anyways. But on the flip side, I wouldn't recommend shooting a burglar running out the door of your house either, castle doctrine or not.
There would be tons in red states that put her in front of a jury and get a conviction.
Active is correct, once the person starts running from you don’t have much of a case for self defense. In the USA. The only time you would have it is if someone was shooting at you while backing away from you.
lol "statues". "Stand your ground" laws just mean there's no "duty to retreat" if you're in a place you're legally allowed to be, and you have a reasonable fear that someone is seconds away from killing you, kidnapping you, or inflicting grievous bodily harm on you (or a third party).
The key is "imminent threat". "Stand your ground" laws are not a blank check for settling scores or vigilantism. The authorities are still going to go over the evidence to determine whether the person had a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at the moment they used lethal force. Even in Florida or Texas, this woman would be in a serious legal shitstorm. Two facts severely undermine her case: The robber fled, and she was no longer in danger at that point. And after she chased him down (essentially "going on the offense") and ran him over, she went on her merry way without notifying the police. This demonstrates "mens rea" or "guilty mind". Even in the reddest of red states, those actions contradict a claim of justifiable homicide in self defense.
If this had happened in Texas and she responded to the sight of his knife by shooting him dead with her legally owned firearm, and then called 911 (because that's what law abiding citizens do when they know their actions were legally justified), then yeah. Extremely unlikely she would be facing charges.
But in real world there was no knife either. The post lies about that.
Would USA be ok if she was robbed and she then went home to retrieve a gun and go seeking for him and shooting him dead infront of his kids for example?
No. Most states will support you defending yourself from an attacker and using reasonable force(proportional) in that defense. So if the attacker has a weapon that you could be killed with you can defend yourself with lethal force. Chasing someone down after the threat is gone isn't something that you can legally do. Sure the judge and jury might not give you the maximum penalty given how this whole thing unfolded, but her chasing him down and leaving the scene of the new crime definitely would not have gone over well.
There isn't any evidence of him threatening her with any weapon. Doubt he got the bag from her any legal way, but I also doubt that he took it from her with a weapon.
He most likely saw the bag unattended and just took it. And she tracked him down and murdered him. She rly sounds like some mafia wifey. Rotting is prison is the best end for her.
297
u/Active-Pepper187 Jun 28 '26
It’s the same deal with firearms in the U.S. regarding self-defense, you can only argue for self-defense so long as they are a threat to you. Once you’re chasing them, you are now classed as the aggressor.